The launch hazard chart for the region near the launch site reveals that the trajectory will follow the northeast coastof North America; therefore, the target orbit is a quasi-60 degree LEO, or a Molniya.

Per my earlier posts in this thread, since the return of the Falcon 9's first stage is targeting the launch site, thepayload is either headed for LEO, or is a fairly low in mass and headed for Molniya.

If LEO, I suspect it is a replacement or follow-on to the experimental USA 193, which was launched on NROL-21, andfailed upon reaching its 58.5 deg, 360 km orbit.

If Molniya, then I suspect it is a new generation of SDS Molniya, built on Boeing's BSS-702SP bus.

Molniya SDS seems more likely.

Ted Molczan

Any thoughts on the possibility that this could be a NOSS / Intruder pair? They're in 63º orbits and have been launched from the Cape before (NROL-23 and -30). Or would the relatively high-LEO target orbit (1000 km) and payload mass for such a pair preclude a RTLS landing?

The launch hazard chart for the region near the launch site reveals that the trajectory will follow the northeast coastof North America; therefore, the target orbit is a quasi-60 degree LEO, or a Molniya.

Per my earlier posts in this thread, since the return of the Falcon 9's first stage is targeting the launch site, thepayload is either headed for LEO, or is a fairly low in mass and headed for Molniya.

If LEO, I suspect it is a replacement or follow-on to the experimental USA 193, which was launched on NROL-21, andfailed upon reaching its 58.5 deg, 360 km orbit.

If Molniya, then I suspect it is a new generation of SDS Molniya, built on Boeing's BSS-702SP bus.

Molniya SDS seems more likely.

Ted Molczan

While a long shot due to the presence of NROL-79, I wonder why NOSS is eliminated from the probable list? It could be that 79 is of the older generation and 76 is a new prototype, which could theoretically explain such a scenario.

Speaking of which, where is the NRO's mission patch? Such patches are usually made public long before by now. Or will the fairing spots a huge question mark?

The launch hazard chart for the region near the launch site reveals that the trajectory will follow the northeast coastof North America; therefore, the target orbit is a quasi-60 degree LEO, or a Molniya.

Per my earlier posts in this thread, since the return of the Falcon 9's first stage is targeting the launch site, thepayload is either headed for LEO, or is a fairly low in mass and headed for Molniya.

If LEO, I suspect it is a replacement or follow-on to the experimental USA 193, which was launched on NROL-21, andfailed upon reaching its 58.5 deg, 360 km orbit.

If Molniya, then I suspect it is a new generation of SDS Molniya, built on Boeing's BSS-702SP bus.

Molniya SDS seems more likely.

Ted Molczan

While a long shot due to the presence of NROL-79, I wonder why NOSS is eliminated from the probable list? It could be that 79 is of the older generation and 76 is a new prototype, which could theoretically explain such a scenario.

Speaking of which, where is the NRO's mission patch? Such patches are usually made public long before by now. Or will the fairing spots a huge question mark?

Following to that, I have reviewed the previous posts that Ted Molczan posted there:

He linked up previous reports around late 2013, of the US government ordering 3 Boeing BSS-702SP all-electric thrusters comsat, as well as an order of the F9 before it was certified for US government payloads, with NROL-76. His speculation is that it was ordered a la PAN/CLIO, in which the satellite builder (Boeing in his theory) ordered the ride to orbit in a package deal. The direction of the launch and the capability of the F9 1st stage to RTLS with a single BSS-702SP satellite payload to GTO also fits with it.

While a long shot due to the presence of NROL-79, I wonder why NOSS is eliminated from the probable list? It could be that 79 is of the older generation and 76 is a new prototype, which could theoretically explain such a scenario.

My main problem with it being NOSS is not how close it is to L79 per se, but rather that NOSS seems to operate with four pairs of satellites, none of which are due for replacement. A prototype could be one way to explain an out-of-sequence launch; a failing satellite or expansion of the constellation would be other explanations.

This could also explain an oddity in the ODNI budget document that Snowden leaked to the Washington Post a few years ago. This listed three pairs of satellites: Intruder 5/6; Intruder 7/8 and Intruder 11/12. There was no Intruder 9 or 10. For reasons that I intend to go over in a separate thread in the not-too-distant future, I believe each number relates to a pair of satellites, and that NROL-79 was Intruder 8. Potentially Intruder 9/10 could be funded elsewhere if they were being built for R&D. I still think it's very early to be seeing another launch as I wouldn't have expected one until around 2020/21 to replace NROL-34.

I like Ted's theory that it is a HEO Quasar. If it's a 702SP then three satellites would be enough for continuous coverage. Previous Molniya SDS launches have used a lower deployment orbit with the satellite performing orbit raising, so I wouldn't rule out a heavier satellite going to an intermediate orbit. The question is if it is a Quasar going to HEO, why now? The three most-recently-launched satellites are over nine (L-24), twelve (L-1) and nineteen (L-5) years old respectively; contemporary GEO satellites were replaced after eleven years. If they only need two satellites, the schedule's about right for replacing L-1.

LEO shouldn't be ruled out. Even if it's not some kind of L-21 followup, it could be a different demonstration mission, a new class of satellite or even a rideshare for several experimental satellites.

While a long shot due to the presence of NROL-79, I wonder why NOSS is eliminated from the probable list? It could be that 79 is of the older generation and 76 is a new prototype, which could theoretically explain such a scenario.

My main problem with it being NOSS is not how close it is to L79 per se, but rather that NOSS seems to operate with four pairs of satellites, none of which are due for replacement. A prototype could be one way to explain an out-of-sequence launch; a failing satellite or expansion of the constellation would be other explanations.

This could also explain an oddity in the ODNI budget document that Snowden leaked to the Washington Post a few years ago. This listed three pairs of satellites: Intruder 5/6; Intruder 7/8 and Intruder 11/12. There was no Intruder 9 or 10. For reasons that I intend to go over in a separate thread in the not-too-distant future, I believe each number relates to a pair of satellites, and that NROL-79 was Intruder 8. Potentially Intruder 9/10 could be funded elsewhere if they were being built for R&D. I still think it's very early to be seeing another launch as I wouldn't have expected one until around 2020/21 to replace NROL-34.

I like Ted's theory that it is a HEO Quasar. If it's a 702SP then three satellites would be enough for continuous coverage. Previous Molniya SDS launches have used a lower deployment orbit with the satellite performing orbit raising, so I wouldn't rule out a heavier satellite going to an intermediate orbit. The question is if it is a Quasar going to HEO, why now? The three most-recently-launched satellites are over nine (L-24), twelve (L-1) and nineteen (L-5) years old respectively; contemporary GEO satellites were replaced after eleven years. If they only need two satellites, the schedule's about right for replacing L-1.

LEO shouldn't be ruled out. Even if it's not some kind of L-21 followup, it could be a different demonstration mission, a new class of satellite or even a rideshare for several experimental satellites.

NOSS can likely be ruled out for this launch, as NOSS are operated in certain orbital planes and the launch period did not change accordingly, when NROL-76 was delayed 2 weeks.

Concerning the Quasar/702SP theory, the satellites were never ordered under commercial contracts as were the three 702SP, so i am somewhat skeptical.

I was there for CRS/SpX-10.The gate at the Visitor Center opened for us at 6:30 AM.After the abort, with the ISS orbit precessing 20 minutes earlier each day, on Sunday that gate opened at..... 7:00, which still gave us plenty of time for the 9:38 liftoff. It's not obvious that the Visitor Center hours are the real reason for no special viewing arrangements.

Logged

What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

The key phrase from their tweet is "way outside". They'll open early or stay open late...within reason.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they stretched the times a bit more for NASA missions than for commercial (or NROL) launches...

Also if you see satelite launches every 2 weeks, it is not so much a miss when you dont open for one. Most NASA launches are unique with larger public interest in them to allow an opening at 3am or so. And there are other places further away were you can still see the launch from right?